Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

Atheism requires as much faith as religion? bearvspuma : The only problem with this rationalization is that ita s assuming all athiests are so because theya re intelligent in the ways of science and reasoning and all people that believe in a form of god are unintelligent. Full Story

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#149616 Jan 23, 2013
christianity is EVIL wrote:
<quoted text>god cant be outside of time heres why

God is defined as The Conscious First Cause -
The First Cause is That which caused Time
Consciousness is that which lets one make a decision.
A Decision is the action of changing ones mind from undecided to decided.
Time is the measure of change.

Something which is caused can't be required by that which causes it.

Time is required for Change,
A Decision is a Change.
Decisions require Time.
Consciousness can't let one make a decision without Time.
Consciousness requires Time.
God is Conscious.
God requires Time.
God can't be the cause of Time if God requires Time.
God isn't the cause of Time.
God isn't The First Cause.
You some how seem to believe that God must adhere to your line if reasoning. What a hoot!

Pretty funny.

“Darwin died for your sins”

Since: Aug 08

Nunya

#149617 Jan 23, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Just because God knows what choices you will make doesn't mean He makes those choices for you.
Simple as that.
It has nothing to do with making choices for you. It has to do with omniscience and freewill.

For any future act you will perform, if some being infallibly believed in the past that the act would occur, there is nothing you can do now about the fact that he believed what he believed since nobody has any control over past events; nor can you make him mistaken in his belief, given that he is infallible. Therefore, there is nothing you can do now about the fact that he believed in a way that cannot be mistaken that you would do what you will do. But if so, you cannot do otherwise than what he believed you would do. And if you cannot do otherwise, you will not perform the act freely.

“Darwin died for your sins”

Since: Aug 08

Nunya

#149618 Jan 23, 2013
Serah

Australia

#149619 Jan 23, 2013
AntiFreakMachine wrote:
<quoted text>
What a crock.
So, when Jesus told his disciple Peter that he would deny him three times by the time the cock crew, what was that, free will, prophecy, or a "divine decree"?
LOL.. not that hard to work out, especially if you know how to use a dictionary :)

***prophecy - definition of prophecy by the Free Online Dictionary ...
www.thefreedictionary.com/prophecy
a. An inspired utterance of a prophet, viewed as a revelation of divine will. b. A prediction of the future, made under divine inspiration***

So, a prediction of the future is what? Have you learned something today??
Serah

Australia

#149620 Jan 23, 2013
Pat wrote:
<quoted text>
You claim a god then you prove a god or accept you are a liar.
It is an established maxim and moral that he who makes an assertion without knowing whether it is true or false is guilty of falsehood, and the accidental truth of the assertion does not justify or excuse him.
-- Abraham Lincoln
***n 1862 and 1863, during the most difficult days of the Civil War and his presidency, Lincoln's utterances were sometimes marked with spiritual overtones.
1862: Bereavement and Emancipation

On Thursday, February 20, 1862, at 5:00 P.M. Lincoln's eleven year old son, William Wallace Lincoln (Willie), died in the White House. Historians suggest that this may have been the most difficult personal crisis in his life. After the funeral, Lincoln attempted a return to his routine, but he was unable. One week after the funeral, he isolated himself in his office and wept all day. Several people report that Lincoln told them that his feelings about religion changed at this time. Willie is reported to have often remarked that he wanted to be a minister someday.[19] When he died, Lincoln reportedly said, "May God live in all. He was too good for this earth. The good Lord has called him home. I know that he is much better off in Heaven."[20][21]

Spiritualism, popularly in vogue during this era, was tried by Lincoln's wife. Mrs. Lincoln used the services of mediums and spiritualists to try to contact their dead son. Lincoln allegedly attended at least one seance at the White House with Mrs. Lincoln at this time.[22]

At the same time, the War was not going well for the Union. General George McClellan's failure in the Peninsula Campaign came about within months after Willie's death. Next came Robert E. Lee's impressive victory at the Second Battle of Bull Run, after which he said, "I have been driven many times upon my knees by the overwhelming conviction that I had nowhere else to go."[23][24]

According to Salmon Chase, as he was preparing to issue the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln said, "I made a solemn vow before God, that if General Lee was driven back from Maryland I would crown the result by the declaration of freedom to the slaves."[25] The differences in interpretation of the President's statement can be due to the belief that "swearing or vowing" to God was blasphemous to some religious sects.

At the same time, Lincoln sat down in his office and penned the following words:

The will of God prevails. In great contests each party claims to act in accordance with the will of God. Both may be, and one must be, wrong. God cannot be for and against the same thing at the same time. In the present civil war it is quite possible that God's purpose is something different from the purpose of either party -- and yet the human instrumentalities, working just as they do, are of the best adaptation to effect His purpose. I am almost ready to say that this is probably true -- that God wills this contest, and wills that it shall not end yet. By his mere great power, on the minds of the now contestants, He could have either saved or destroyed the Union without a human contest. Yet the contest began. And, having begun He could give the final victory to either side any day. Yet the contest proceeds.[26]***

Abraham Lincoln certainly showed good sense in his logic!!:)

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#149621 Jan 23, 2013
madscot wrote:
<quoted text>
It has nothing to do with making choices for you. It has to do with omniscience and freewill.
For any future act you will perform, if some being infallibly believed in the past that the act would occur, there is nothing you can do now about the fact that he believed what he believed since nobody has any control over past events; nor can you make him mistaken in his belief, given that he is infallible. Therefore, there is nothing you can do now about the fact that he believed in a way that cannot be mistaken that you would do what you will do. But if so, you cannot do otherwise than what he believed you would do. And if you cannot do otherwise, you will not perform the act freely.
I have a hard time saying this... but I have to agree with Riverside redneck on this... that was painful to type.

I don't know if you have read my comment on this a few pages back... but in case you did and still don't follow, im going to use another scenario I'm stealing from a YouTube video i watched.

If i wrote down everything you did for the next week.. then i came back in time and gave you that envelope now and told you not to open it for a week... when you opened it you would find that you did everything i recorded. Apart from the butterfly effect from giving you the envelope, i did not interfere with your free will.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#149622 Jan 23, 2013
Oops?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#149623 Jan 23, 2013
Serah wrote:
<quoted text>LOL.. not that hard to work out, especially if you know how to use a dictionary :)
***prophecy - definition of prophecy by the Free Online Dictionary ...
www.thefreedictionary.com/prophecy
a. An inspired utterance of a prophet, viewed as a revelation of divine will. b. A prediction of the future, made under divine inspiration***
So, a prediction of the future is what? Have you learned something today??
According to the myth, that would be a negation of free will.

I trust you've enjoyed the lesson.

“Don't be so dichotomous.”

Since: Jan 11

Embrace the grey.

#149624 Jan 23, 2013
EmpAtheist wrote:
Oops?
Everybody makes mistakes.

“Don't be so dichotomous.”

Since: Jan 11

Embrace the grey.

#149625 Jan 23, 2013
Is someone here asserting that humans have free will or that omniscience exists?

We can define omniscience in such a way that it would be compatible with free will, but they are both fictional concepts.

Whether or not the concepts are logically compatible depends on the definition of each concept. I could argue from either side as long as the concepts are well defined.

I think it would be more interesting to argue if either could exist, or do exist, and explain how.
Serah

Australia

#149626 Jan 23, 2013
AntiFreakMachine wrote:
<quoted text> According to the myth, that would be a negation of free will.
I trust you've enjoyed the lesson.
JESUS warned/prophesied Peter that he would deny JESUS three times ~ just because Peter chose to deny JESUS (even after denying that he would deny him prior to that) does not mean Peter had his free will taken away.

Peter denied knowing JESUS because he was scared.....

Trust you have enjoyed furthering your lesson :)

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#149627 Jan 23, 2013
Serah wrote:
<quoted text>JESUS warned/prophesied Peter that he would deny JESUS three times ~ just because Peter chose to deny JESUS (even after denying that he would deny him prior to that) does not mean Peter had his free will taken away.
Peter denied knowing JESUS because he was scared.....
Trust you have enjoyed furthering your lesson :)
No, you're wrong, if Peter had not done just exactly as Jesus said, he would have been a false prophet, or not a deity as is claimed.

When Jesus said that is what Peter would do, then Peter had no choice in the outcome.

The whole freewill thing as asserted by Christianity - is laughable.

Matthew 26:34
34.) Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, Peter--this very night, before the rooster crows, you will deny three times that you even know me."

Peter had to do that, no? But wait, if he didn't, Jesus would have given a false prophecy.

Peter had no choice.

Jesus told Peter he would deny him three times before morning.

Could Peter have done any different? If so, how could Jesus be a god?

No, if Peter had done differently, Jesus couldn't have been deity, not according to the bible. In the story, the moment Jesus said it would happen, it became prophecy. If it didn't happen, then Jesus would have been a false prophet, and certainly not a god.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#149628 Jan 23, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
Is someone here asserting that humans have free will or that omniscience exists?
We can define omniscience in such a way that it would be compatible with free will, but they are both fictional concepts.
Whether or not the concepts are logically compatible depends on the definition of each concept. I could argue from either side as long as the concepts are well defined.
I think it would be more interesting to argue if either could exist, or do exist, and explain how.
I don't think there is rational approach or reasoning - or logic - that you can apply to a god concept that would create special beings with free will. Then; Restrict that free will by demanding we don't use it freely. And; Give us an inquisitive yearning for knowledge that is all around us, then punish us for using either of those things that the god placed there for us to choose from in the first place...by demanding our deaths, or, blind submission to the notion of "don't question it, do as I say".

Stepping away from the deistic concept of omniscience and free will.

Our immediate and current actions may not be the result of free will, like having to crossing terrain, physical limitations, or that we do have to eat and sleep, etc. But, reflecting on those actions and what we did once and what we had little choice in during that first encounter, and will do, allows us to modify how we react to those relatively immutable aspects of physical existence we face. So I think we do have a modicum of free will in that respect.

But, no matter how we may choose to traverse or encounter something in the future, and even currently, if it's a mountain, for instance, we still have to cross it, or go around it, or dig a tunnel through it. If we still must go from point A to B and if the mountain or river is a part of that point A to B trip, we have little free will in that respect.

That's my general view concerning free will, we have very little.

“Darwin died for your sins”

Since: Aug 08

Nunya

#149629 Jan 23, 2013
EmpAtheist wrote:
If i wrote down everything you did for the next week.. then i came back in time
\

I'm confused here. Are you writing this down as it happens? Not sure if you're predicting or observing what's taking place a week in the future.

“Darwin died for your sins”

Since: Aug 08

Nunya

#149630 Jan 23, 2013
AntiFreakMachine wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think there is rational approach or reasoning - or logic - that you can apply to a god concept that would create special beings with free will. Then; Restrict that free will by demanding we don't use it freely. And; Give us an inquisitive yearning for knowledge that is all around us, then punish us for using either of those things that the god placed there for us to choose from in the first place...by demanding our deaths, or, blind submission to the notion of "don't question it, do as I say".
Stepping away from the deistic concept of omniscience and free will.
Our immediate and current actions may not be the result of free will, like having to crossing terrain, physical limitations, or that we do have to eat and sleep, etc. But, reflecting on those actions and what we did once and what we had little choice in during that first encounter, and will do, allows us to modify how we react to those relatively immutable aspects of physical existence we face. So I think we do have a modicum of free will in that respect.
But, no matter how we may choose to traverse or encounter something in the future, and even currently, if it's a mountain, for instance, we still have to cross it, or go around it, or dig a tunnel through it. If we still must go from point A to B and if the mountain or river is a part of that point A to B trip, we have little free will in that respect.
That's my general view concerning free will, we have very little.
The way I see it is, every choice we make is based on knowledge, past experiences, reason and deduction (and a few more). I agree this allows for a degree of freewill. But it's a freewill that was determined by sound reasoning that allows us to make the best choice possible.

Does that make sense or am I just tossing word salad?(childish giggle)

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#149631 Jan 23, 2013
madscot wrote:
<quoted text>
The way I see it is, every choice we make is based on knowledge, past experiences, reason and deduction (and a few more). I agree this allows for a degree of freewill. But it's a freewill that was determined by sound reasoning that allows us to make the best choice possible.
Does that make sense or am I just tossing word salad?(childish giggle)
It makes sense, and to emphasize a portion of a phrase you used above:

"allows us to make the best choice possible."

*Allow**Choice*

That indicates, to me, we're only exercising a semblance of free will in an environment that we have very little latitude in the choices available to draw from. The discussion surrounding free will is always thought provoking, because at times you can almost convince yourself we do have free will in what we do from day to day, but upon further examination, we're really at the whim of our environment.

There is one thing we do have 100% free will in.

The choice to die.

Any of us can choose to die in various ways, and that is pure free will if a person chooses that, but, who wants to choose death in order to exercise 100% free will?

“cdesign proponentsists”

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

#149632 Jan 24, 2013
AntiFreakMachine wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you're wrong, if Peter had not done just exactly as Jesus said, he would have been a false prophet, or not a deity as is claimed.
When Jesus said that is what Peter would do, then Peter had no choice in the outcome.
The whole freewill thing as asserted by Christianity - is laughable.
Matthew 26:34
34.) Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, Peter--this very night, before the rooster crows, you will deny three times that you even know me."
Peter had to do that, no? But wait, if he didn't, Jesus would have given a false prophecy.
Peter had no choice.
Jesus told Peter he would deny him three times before morning.
Could Peter have done any different? If so, how could Jesus be a god?
No, if Peter had done differently, Jesus couldn't have been deity, not according to the bible. In the story, the moment Jesus said it would happen, it became prophecy. If it didn't happen, then Jesus would have been a false prophet, and certainly not a god.
You let me know if you can teach a rock to think. Logic is not their strong suit.
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#149633 Jan 24, 2013
The three denials are at the end of this short BBC documentary:

www.youtube.com/watch...
Serah wrote:
<quoted text>JESUS warned/prophesied Peter that he would deny JESUS three times ~ just because Peter chose to deny JESUS (even after denying that he would deny him prior to that) does not mean Peter had his free will taken away.
Peter denied knowing JESUS because he was scared.....
Trust you have enjoyed furthering your lesson :)

“cdesign proponentsists”

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

#149634 Jan 24, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Just because God knows what choices you will make doesn't mean He makes those choices for you.
Simple as that.
Was it my free will to be born?

Was it my free will to be born in the 1960's?

Was it my free will to be born in Pittsburgh, PA?

Was it my free will to be born into the family that I was?

As a child, was it my free will to attend the church that I did?

As a child, was it my free will to attend the schools that I did?

Was it my free will to have the teachers that I had?

All these things greatly influenced my decisions; yet according to believers, your god arranged all that for me. That is not free will, that is programming.
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#149635 Jan 24, 2013
If you look at the BBC skit in my post above, it actually explains how Judas had little or no free will.
TheBlackSheep wrote:
<quoted text>
Was it my free will to be born?
Was it my free will to be born in the 1960's?
Was it my free will to be born in Pittsburgh, PA?
Was it my free will to be born into the family that I was?
As a child, was it my free will to attend the church that I did?
As a child, was it my free will to attend the schools that I did?
Was it my free will to have the teachers that I had?
All these things greatly influenced my decisions; yet according to believers, your god arranged all that for me. That is not free will, that is programming.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 19 min Eman 22,519
The numbers are in: America still distrusts ath... 3 hr emperorjohn 26
Our world came from nothing? 5 hr Patrick 506
Indiana Governor Mike Pence Stands Up to Atheis... 8 hr cancer suxs 5
Atheism vs. Theism: Knowns and Unknowns 10 hr Thinking 140
An atheist returns to Christ (Jan '09) 11 hr Thinking 4,118
The problem of evil and hate (Oct '13) 11 hr The Dude 357
•••

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••